29 posts in this topic

A U.N.-sponsored conference next month in Dubai will propose new regulations and restrictions for the Internet, which critics say will censor free speech, levy tariffs on e-commerce, and even force companies to clean up their

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Hum' timestamp='1351791754' post='595289885']Terry Kramer, the chief U.S. envoy to the conference, says the United States is against sanctions and believes management of the Internet by one central organization goes against free speech.[/quote]

No, the issue here is not "free speech" but that the US wants to keep control of the internet. The treatment of Wikileaks and Julian Assange perfectly demonstrates the United States' contempt for free speech when it goes against their interests. The legislation talked about here would require companies to clean up their "e-waste" and make equipment that is better for the environment, as well as setting aside investment to develop the internet backbone. Companies shouldn't be allowed to pollute and create inefficient products simply because it's more profitable - there needs to be safeguards in place.

Sadly, it's not surprising to see Fox News spin it as an attempt by the UN to take-over the internet. We know the US supposedly hates regulation - except when it comes to women's reproductive rights and preventing gay people from getting married - but it's not up to the US to dictate internet policy. It needs to be controlled internationally.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='MDboyz' timestamp='1351793104' post='595289927']
Build their own system and controll it. Enough said ....
[/quote]

You say that as if the US developed the entire infrastructure of the internet. Further, doing so would limit the influence of US companies in Europe. So while your "the US rules the world, suck it!" approach might make you feel better it's not actually in the interests of the US for Europe / the rest of the world to build a separate 'internet'.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Tyler R.' timestamp='1351793856' post='595289965']
Nobody should be in charge of the internet, IMO. It should be free and available for everyone to enjoy..... ....I really have to lay off on the GNU/Linux....
[/quote]

In principal, yes, in practice there has to be someone there to enforce the rules of fairness. We don't need laws and police to protect us from law abiding citizens, but instead to protect us from those who have no respect for the rules of society.

I'm really unsure how we should govern the body to protect the interests of society when it comes to the Internet. Pulling it up to the UN would help to tame the disproportionate control the US levies onto the Internet, but it would also enhance the interests of parties who want to cripple the web even more, such as China and Iran. I would support the control of it being in the hands of the people, but we don't have any precedents for international elections by the citizenry and I'm not sure the average person understands enough about it that they would care to make an informed decision.

Either way, we need a central governing body in the middle; the trick is how to ensure it protects our interests and not those of corporations or governments. Otherwise, we're trading one master, the US with one head, for another, the "International Community" with many heads.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

ah, comon, worked for GPS right?... right?... so when's the E.U.'s Galileo coming online full blown again? eh build your own always works out just great and fast when you do it for fear of someone else controlling it.... right?....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='neufuse' timestamp='1351794497' post='595289995']
ah, comon, worked for GPS right?... right?... so when's the E.U.'s Galileo coming online full blown again? eh build your own always works out just great and fast when you do it for fear of someone else controlling it.... right?....
[/quote]

The success of the Internet has been largely due to the standardized nature of it. If you fragment those standards you'll end up harming both sides of the chasm, not helping. To suggest they build their own when doing so would be in the best interest of no one defies logic.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='LogicalApex' timestamp='1351794384' post='595289985']
In principal, yes, in practice there has to be someone there to enforce the rules of fairness. We don't need laws and police to protect us from law abiding citizens, but instead to protect us from those who have no respect for the rules of society.

I'm really unsure how we should govern the body to protect the interests of society when it comes to the Internet. Pulling it up to the UN would help to tame the disproportionate control the US levies onto the Internet, but it would also enhance the interests of parties who want to cripple the web even more, such as China and Iran. I would support the control of it being in the hands of the people, but we don't have any precidents for international elections by the citizenry and I'm not sure the average person understands enough about it that they would care to make an informed decision.

Either way, we need a central governing body in the middle the trick is how to do ensure it protects our interests and not those of corporations or governments. Otherwise, we're trading one master, the US with one head, for another, the "International Community" with many heads.
[/quote]

This is true. I have no problem with the UN taking down fake sites, sites with malicious intent, and sites that cause harm to children, etc and setting up standards. However, the whole PIPA/ACTA thing is a load. The UN should be very picket and choosey about what they take down and tell us exactly what it violated, or just give them time to take it down themselves.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

While it would be sensible to put the UN in control of the internet - being an international organisation that can balance the needs of all countries - there needs to be safeguards in place to ensure that such power isn't abused. Net neutrality should be enshrined in law, which is something that the US isn't going to support. Even the UN seems unsure of what it intends to do and influential business organisations have made appeals to the UN to oppose net neutrality.

The issue should be [i]how[/i] the UN should regulate the internet, not [i]if [/i]it should.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='LogicalApex' timestamp='1351794693' post='595290001']
The success of the Internet has been largely due to the standardized nature of it. If you fragment those standards you'll end up harming both sides of the chasm, not helping. To suggest they build their own when doing so would be in the best interest of no one defies logic.
[/quote]

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='theyarecomingforyou' timestamp='1351795400' post='595290015']
While it would be sensible to put the UN in control of the internet -
[/quote]
No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.
You just like the idea because you hate America so much.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Hackersoft MS MVP' timestamp='1351803323' post='595290299']
No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization [b]full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done.[/b] Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.
[/quote]

The same could be said for any government body.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

[quote name='Hackersoft MS MVP' timestamp='1351803323' post='595290299']The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.[/quote]

The diplomatic side of the UN is only one aspect of the organisation. Unfortunately it is the highest profile role of the UN and one which is paralysed by the use of vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council - particularly by the US, China and Russia. However, the UN does an incredible amount of very important work and UNESCO is a good example of that (unfortunately the US has dramatically undermined it since Palestine was admitted by a majority vote).

The reason that the US distrusts the UN - despite having huge influence over the organisation, including being home to the United Nations Headquarters - is that the US likes to consider itself above international law and it would rather dictate policy than work to form a consensus with other nations.

[quote name='Hackersoft MS MVP' timestamp='1351803323' post='595290299']No it wouldn't. The UN is a useless organization full of corrupt politicians that never get anything done. Giving the UN control of anything is a bad idea.[/quote]

Do you honestly believe that the UN is [i]more[/i] corrupt than the US Congress? Because approval numbers would suggest the opposite.